COUNTY SEEKS STUDY ON WORKING FAMILIES ORDINANCE
Employees working for businesses operating on county property are inching closer to earning prevailing wages, thanks to a plan being heralded by the county Board of Supervisors.
The board late Tuesday night unanimously agreed to move forward on an economic analysis of the Working Families Ordinance, in advance of its expected approval next year. Supervisors and labor leaders support the plan, but some business owners in the El Cajon area fear it could be financially disastrous.
The ordinance, first brought forward in July by Supervisors Terra LawsonRemer and Nathan Fletcher, is based on the idea that raising wages and guaranteeing protections for employees will help the region’s widening pay and housing inequities.
A key element of the proposed ordinance is a requirement that workers be paid prevailing wages, which are typically based on union wages. The ordinance also would mandate 56 hours of annual sick leave.
Lawson-Remer said on Tuesday that the ordinance “will uplift working families and create good-paying jobs for people in San Diego County.”
“When you have public land it should be used for public benefit,” she said.
Although Fletcher acknowledged that “we have a ways to go to get this right,” the board unanimously directed county staff to work with a consultant to develop a regional economic analysis and impact report to bring back to the board in February. Staff was instructed to also bring back a draft ordinance for board consideration.
Besides the ordinance’s wage and benefit provisions, supervisors say another goal of the policy would be to ensure that bidders on publicly funded construction projects on county land are held to appropriate wage and safety standards.
Several labor union group representatives called into the meeting voicing their support for the proposed policy, citing the need for fair wages and extended sick leave time; better standards for apprenticeship programs and skilled and trained workers; and the creation of a pipeline of careers that will strengthen the economy.
The policy has gotten pushback from El Cajon and business owners in the Gillespie Field area, who contend that the ordinance would cause the East County region great economic harm. Hundreds of local companies — including many momand-pop businesses — operate on or around Gillespie Field, which is on county property in El Cajon where it borders Santee. The county acts as a landlord of its properties, while cities such as El Cajon have land-use jurisdiction over the parcels.
Nearly half of El Cajon’s manufacturing and industrial zoned land is owned by the county. The airport houses 50 aircraft hangars with about 30 small businesses that pay rent to the county. The county also owns land surrounding the airport. In total, El Cajon estimates there are 300 businesses leasing property from the county, and that based on El Cajon business license data, as many as 3,500 people are employed at those businesses.
Several people connected with the airport region
spoke to the supervisors Tuesday about the potential financial impact. They included a representative from the Gillespie Pilots Association, business owners and an attorney representing a potential developer for a last-mile warehouse that has been put on hold because of the proposed ordinance.
Barry Bardack of the Gillespie Field Development Council told the supervisors that requiring prevailing wages will cause the airport to lose tenants and warned
that new developers won’t come to build. Bardack said the change will hurt the airport enterprise fund, used to operate the eight-airport system throughout the county.
Bardack said he expected that the Federal Aviation Administration would be on the county’s heels as it has before when the county had twice “stolen airport land without FAA knowledge or approval” in El Cajon.
“Gillespie is not the county’s to use as you please,” Bardack said. “Gillespie’s deed has constraints on this property. The deed specifies that anytime the county fails to adhere to these requirements, the FAA has the right to revert the property back to the government. You’ll lose it.”